Corporations Masquerading as Government in Australia & World Wide

----- Forwarded message from "neil & mim" <neil_mim2@bigpond.com> -----
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:13:36 +0000
Subject:
To: <senator.abetz@aph.gov.au>, <senator.arbib@aph.gov.au>, <senator.adams@aph.gov.au>, <senator.back@aph.gov.au>, <senator.barnett@aph.gov.au>, <senator.bernardi@aph.gov.au>, <senator.bilyki@aph.gov.au>, <senatorbirmingham@aph.gov.au>, <senator.bishop@aph.gov.au>, <senator.boswell@aph.gov.au>, <senator.boyce@aph.gov.au>, <senator.brandis@aph.gov.au>, <senator.brown@aph.gov.au>, <senatorbushby@aph.gov.au>, <senatorcameron@aph.gov.au>, <senator.carr@aph.gov.au>, <senator.cash@aph.gov.au>, <senator.colbeck@aph.gov.au>, <senator.collins@aph.gov.au>, <senator.conroy@aph.gov.au>, <senator.coonan@aph.gov.au>, <senator.cormann@aph.gov.au>, <senator.crossin@aph.gov.au>, <senator.eggleston@aph.gov.au>, <senator.evans@aph.gov.au>, <senator.farrell@aph.gov.au>, <senator.faulkner@aph.gov.au>, <senator.feeney@aph.gov.au>, <senator.ferguson@aph.gov.au>, <senator.fielding@aph.gov.au>, <senator.fierravanti-wells@aph.gov.au>, <senatorfifield@aph.gov.au>, <senator.fisher@aph.gov.au>, <senatorforshaw@aph.gov.au>, <senator.furner@aph.gov.au>, <senatorhanson-young@aph.gov.au>, <senator.heffeman@aph.gov.au>, <senator.hogg@aph.gov.au>, <senator.humphries@aph.gov.au>, <senator.hurley@aph.gov.au>, <senatorhutchins@aph.gov.au>, <senatorjohnston@aph.gov.au>, <senatorjoyce@aph.gov.au>, <senator.kroger@aph.gov.au>, <senatorludlam@aph.gov.au>, <senator.ludwig@aph.gov.au>, <senatorlundy@aph.gov.au>, <senator.ian.macdonald@aph.gov.au>, <senatormcewen@aph.gov.au>, <senatormcgauran@aph.gov.au>, <senator.mclucas@aph.gov.au>, <senator.marshall@aph.gov.au>, <senator.mason@aph.gov.au>, <senator.milne@aph.gov.au>, <senator.minchin@aph.gov.au>, <senator.moore@aph.gov.au>, <senator.nash@aph.gov.au>, <senator.obrien@aph.gov.au>, <senatorpayne@aph.gov.au>, <senator.polley@aph.gov.au>, <senator.pratt@aph.gov.au>, <senatorronaldson@aph.gov.au>, <senator.ryan@aph.gov.au>, <senator.scullion@aph.gov.au>, <senator.sherry@aph.gov.au>, <senator.siewert@aph.gov.au>, <senator.stephens@aph.gov.au>, <senator.sterle@aph.gov.au>, <senator.troeth@aph.gov.au>, <senator.trood@aph.gov.au>, <senator.trood@aph.gov.au>, <senator.wong@aph.gov.au>, <senator.wortley@aph.gov.au>, <senator.xenophon@aph.gov.au>

Dear Senators

Your individual explanation within 7 days would be appreciated

Signed Neil Lunney 1/215 Pierce Avenue, Little Mountain 4551

Corporations Masquerading as Government in Australia & World Wide

By Andy Whitely  Co-Founder of Wake Up World

The Great Seal of the United Kingdom, atop the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Ac1900                                             Vs.

                                                                                                                    The Great Seal of Australia, a trademark   registered with United States                  Patent and Trademark Office.

 Which represents real (de jure) Government in Australia? Which is seen on “Government” literature?

Would you be surprised to find a company with the same name as your country registered with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington DC? Well, guess what?! Among those listed as corporate entities by the United States SEC are Israel, Turkey, Italy, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, The Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Jamaica, South Africa, Canada, Australia… and my personal favourite (and I quote) “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta as represented by Alberta Investment Management Corp.”

Interesting! So what could all this mean? For the purpose of this article we will follow the example of Australia.

Australia… the lucky country

• SEC Entity Name: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
• SEC Central Index Key (CIK): 0000805157
• SEC Standard Industrial Code (SIC): 8880 (UNKNOWN)
• SEC Business Address: 1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036
• Fiscal Year End: 0630

Well, that certainly raises some questions!

Why is a company called ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ registered in Washington DC? What reason could there be for a country to be registered as a company?

By definition, aren’t corporate and government entities mutually exclusive? And doesn’t government regulate companies?

Why would Australia be registered with the SEC in the United States? And why would it provide a ‘Prospectus’ and annual ‘Economic and Fiscal Outlook’ documents to the SEC? And be subject to SEC regulation?

Why is the Great Seal of Australia a trademark registered with United States Patent and Trademark Office?

Could the ‘Australian Government’ be a corporate entity masquerading as real government, for profit, and not for the purpose of governance? Does the ‘Australian Government’ truly represent “the people” and not shareholders in another country?

Why do today’s government departments have corporate mission statements like “we provide services on BEHALF of government” and “our CLIENTS include government…”?

What happened to “we ARE government”?? Does this suggest they are NOT true government, but a company masquerading as government?

If a company registered in Washington DC is falsely claiming government status in Australia, what happened to the real (de jure) government with a similar name? And when?

And are the laws in Australia therefore just rules for employees and contractors of the corporation?

Interesting. Let’s look a little closer…

Perhaps it is a requirement that the Commonwealth of Australia registers as a company entity in order to trade with the United States of America. Are all the other countries who trade with the United States also registered on the American SEC? Is ‘the United States of America’ also registered with ASIC, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission? And is Australia similarly registered with the corresponding trade regulators in other countries?

The answer appears to be NO.

International trade implies mutual agreement; reciprocity; a common method of exchange. But the reality is that the ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ is registered as a corporate entity with the United States SEC, but not the other way around. There appear to be no comparable corporate entities registered in other countries with which Australia trades. And nations ranking among the United States’ biggest trading partners do NOT have corporate avatars registered with the American SEC. Perhaps registration in Washington DC is for the purpose of trading Government Bonds. Interesting…

… But this strange corporate entity is only half the story. Before government bonds can even exist, surely there must first be a legitimate government.

Government and the role of Governor-General in Australia

In Australia, the Governor-General is the representative of the Monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II) and the Administrator of Government. Given that the Governor-General administers government in Australia, government can only exist in Australia with a valid Governor-General. The Governor-General is reliant upon the existence of the ‘Office of Governor-General’, which was originally constituted by the late Queen Victoria in Letters Patent dated 29th October 1900, passed under the Monarch’s seal – the Great Seal Of The United Kingdom (view Letters Patent 1900).

The power and authority to revoke, alter or amend those Letters Patent was reserved by the late Queen Victoria to her heirs and successors. Given those Letters Patent were issued under the ‘Great Seal of the United Kingdom’, surely any revocation, alteration or amendment must be issued by an heir and successor under the same Seal.

So what’s the problem?

In 1984, Letters Patent supposedly revoked the original Letters Patent of 1900 and provided new provisions for the Office of Governor-General (view Letters Patent 1984). This happened under the ‘Great Seal of Australia’, which we already know is a corporate trademark registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office in the U.S. (view registration)

Surely such an attempt at revocation cannot therefore be lawful? And if not, what Office is the Governor-General in Australia presently occupying? Is the person we call “Governor-General” truly a representative of an “heir and successor” to the late Queen Victoria?

The answer appears to be NO.

Given that the Governor-General appoints Ministers, Judges, Commissioners and Justices of the Peace, and ascribes Royal Assent as the Monarch’s representative in Australia – using the Monarch’s Seal – in the absence of a valid Governor-General, are there any legitimate government offices in Australia?

Again… the answer appears to be NO.

So let’s test the theory…

A case study

Wake Up World friend and colleague Scott Bartle documented his recent dealings with ‘Australian Customs & Border Protection Service’ in his self-funded documentary “What The FUQ? – Frequently Unanswered Questions of the Australian Government”.

This simple, concise and sometimes hilarious case-study follows Scott’s ongoing interactions with a supposed “government” entity that simply does not behave as a genuine government agency should.

And all he did was ask them to demonstrate their validity!

Documentary Trailer – What The FUQ Trailer (2:47 mins)

To view this documentary in full, Click here. I highly recommended it.

So… IS the “Australian Government” the same government the original Office of Governor-General was intended to Administer?

It’s a question that officials at all levels of “Australian Government” have seem unwilling or unable to answer. Some readers may think I’m a crack-pot for even asking the question. “Break out the tin-foil hats!” they’ll cry! But please… Before you form an opinion or post a comment on this article, ask the Australian Government the same question yourself:

Can you please demonstrate that today’s Office of Governor-General is the same Office that was constituted by the late Queen Victoria in Letters Patent of 1900?

It is your right, after all. And there are certainly some details that don’t add up. But it gets better….

That’s odd, they certainly don’t ACT like a true government.

At first “Government” may just ignore you. But since anyone claiming government status has a responsibility to prove it, their silence is very indicative, don’t you think? So push your Government a little further, and see what happens when you really start to question who’s who. Taxes & fines are suddenly waived, and miraculously, licenses & permits are no longer required! And it doesn’t stop there.

Does this sound like the behaviour of legitimate government? NO, it does not. If challenged, does a legitimate government not simply demonstrate its validity and continue to act within its lawful authority? Or does legitimate government exempt that person’s responsibilities and wave them through the gates, quickly, quietly and with a minimum of fuss? “Nothing to see here!”

Is this situation unique to Australia?

Let’s find out!

To our friends and readers from the Commonwealth of Australia, we recommend you contact your local Members and Senators and ask them one simple question:

Can you please demonstrate that today’s Office of Governor-General is the same Office that was constituted by the late Queen Victoria in Letters Patent of 1900?

To our friends and readers outside Australia, we recommend you identify the documents that established the original offices of government in your country, then ask one simple question of your government representatives:

Can you please demonstrate that today’s government is the same one as established at the inception of this country?

Demonstrating its own legitimacy is a very simple thing that every government agency should be able to do. And in a true democracy, silence is an unacceptable response of government to questions of its very legitimacy. But today the “Australian Government” appears unwilling or unable to prove its legitimacy.

Is yours?

It only takes a few minutes to write to your local member’s office. Please come back to Wake Up World and tell our readers how your enquiry was met. Silence? Jargon? Or a simple demonstration of your government’s legitimacy?

We’d love to hear your stories, so please leave a comment or send us an email

So what the FUQ do we do next?

Written enquiries made to Ministers and Government agencies, to the Office of the Prime Minister and to the Office of Governor General remain unanswered. So in the absence of a response from Government, Wake Up World supports respectfully escalating this matter to the current Monarch, Her Majesty, The Queen.

Surely Her Majesty must know the answer; why a corporation in the United States bears the name ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’; why in 1984 her authority to amend the provisions for the Office of Governor-General was granted on a company letterhead; why those claiming to represent true government in Australia have been unable to prove that status; and why some, when challenged, may suddenly overlook one’s obligations and run silently in the other direction.

SIGN THE PETITION

     …and ask Her Majesty for the truth.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

     …we all have a right to know.

HOLD YOUR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE

     …it is just one simple question.

In a true democracy, silence is an unacceptable answer of government to questions of its legitimacy.

About the Author

Andy Whiteley is co-founder of Wake Up World.

Special thanks Scott Bartle for travelling 4,000 kms to help join the dots.

DEAR SHERIFF OF NEW SOUTH WALES: TRIAL BY JURY - DR JOHN WILSON

John Wilson	Jul 31 (1 day ago)
to Wilsons

----- Original Message -----

From: John Wilson

To: sheriff.jury@agd.nsw.gov.au

Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:11 AM

Subject: Juror number 5355415

Dear Sheriff of New South Wales,

 

Thank you for your letter advising me that I am "Juror number: 5355415" and I "MAY be summoned to attend court for jury service in the period August 2013 to July 2014".

 

I appreciate your doing this because it will give the opportunity to educate others as to their rights and responsibilities in their administering Justice.

 

Attached is your letter to me with my comments in the "CRIMINAL HISTORY" section ...... which is that "FRAUDULENT JUDGES HAVE BEEN PERSECUTING ME BECAUSE I DEMAND MY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY".

 

So, you can see why I am delighted with what you have done.

 

However, I would like to point out that I have been terribly disappointed in your Sheriff's Officers NOT doing their duty which, as I found on your website, is "To ensure that people can exercise their rights in court in safety". It is quite the contrary because every time I have tried to "exercise my rights in court", especially, my Right to Trial by Jury, your Officers had assaulted me and violently removed me from the Court and sometimes even imprisoning me in the cells to release me into the street a few hours later.

 

I received a letter, on 16.11.2010, from one Juror telling me of how your Officers threaten Jurors. The Juror was too frightened to sign the letter, for fear of he or his family becoming victims in some way - for which I don't blame him. 

 

This terrible state of affairs existing in Australia - where nothing less than a Police State has been created by thieves (being the Banks) and traitors (being the Judges) to destroy all that Australia once stood for.

 

People's Rights and Freedoms have been wiped out by, as the Bill of Rights 1688 accurately describes, "evil counsellors, judges and ministers endeavouring to subvert and extirpate the laws and liberties of the realm'.

 

Whenever TYRANNY raises its ugly head, it has always resulted in the People (or at least those who "will not be slaves again") FIGHT BACK and, when civilized methods do not succeed, it is the cause of bloody Revolution.

 

So, you can see why I'm thrilled to receive your letter informing me that I am "Juror number: 5355415".

 

I gives my a "captured audience" of other Jurors to educate and help them - by talking with them and answering any questions they might have.

 

My attempts to speak to gatherings of any kind, to promote the cause of Liberty, many times are resisted by individuals in those organizations who are intend on bullying and "keeping down" even the small percentage who might become activists against the oppression imposed by the thieves and traitors ... by the Banks and Judges.

 

Even last night, I attempted to speak about Liberty at the monthly meeting of my R.S.L. Sub-branch at Epping - only to be shouted down by the Officeholders and physically removed from the club. I, of course, do not react in any physical way and, as they try to push and shove me, I move at my own speed and continue to shout above the Quislings that it is the role of the R.S.L. to be "Eternally Vigilant" as "The Price of Liberty" in their own motto says. As I said, I am always calm and never get ruffled by being man-handled. I walked down the stairs by myself to the entrance of the club in Rawson Street, Epping to see a Police Patrol car right in front with a few Police Officers out of the car and some 50 metres away, talking to themselves but making no move towards me. I then went to the bus stop to return home.

 

The thieves and traitors (Banks and Judges) are having it all their own way, at the moment ... and, perhaps, they might eventually carry out their "FINAL SOLUTION" for world domination and ENSLAVING all the PEOPLES of the world ........ but I hope and pray that will not happen ... it's certainly going to take more than a handful of FREEDOM-LOVERS to stop them.     

 

 

Yours sincerely,

John Wilson.

Chairman, Australian Common Law Party.

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please click "Reply" and type in the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" under "Subject".

2 attachments — Download all attachments  

Jury Seervice001.pdf 382K   View   Download

Anonymous letter .pdf 60K   View   Download

ALL GOOD PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA: THE FINAL CURTAIN AND YOUR MONEY

Fw: FLORA NEWS #19 - THE FINAL CURTAIN & YOUR MONEY - B2

Inbox

x

bevan	6:56 PM (15 hours ago)
to me

 

----- Original Message -----

From: flora@reachnet.com.au

To: Sue Maynes

Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 9:02 PM

Subject: FLORA NEWS #19 - THE FINAL CURTAIN & YOUR MONEY - B2

Good people of the Commonwealth of Australia – as you all know David Walter has lodged his matter in the International Court of Justice, seeking the return of our Commonwealth Parliament, our courts, our justice.

The attached newsletter FLORA 19 and the 5 documents give you all the Final Outline of what has been done in this country, from the beginning of the corporate government to today.

Read it in order to understand the information, then ask yourself 1 simple question.

If this government is NOT our constitutional parliament and if this government does NOT use our lawful currency – what sort of financial situation does this Commonwealth and its people face?

Their own acts have identified that they were not allowed to touch Commonwealth money, which is our real money.
Their own acts refer to the Australian dollar as ‘promissory notes,’ which is only an offer to pay real money.
And their own statutory documentation establishes that they have negotiated to utilize american currency to gain venture capital.

In terms of the public borrowings -
* if they are not our government then they are not able to borrow in our name.
* if they are not borrowing in our name, then we do not owe the international debt.
* if we do not owe the international debt – then they do.

In terms of public assets -
* if they are not our government, then our assets are still bound to our constitution and the sale of any of them has been fraudulent and an act of larceny.
* if they are not our government then the income generated in those sales must be returned

In terms of private taxes, rates, fines, etc
* if they are not our government then to claim our money without a personal commercial agreement is larceny.

* if they are not our government then to bankrupt us for that money, is an act of war.

In terms of our savings
* if they are not our government and the australian dollar has no value as it has no head of power – then you and I have been paid in promissory notes
* that australian dollar belongs to the australian government as a creation of statutory legislation
* the australian dollar does not belong to the people of the Commonwealth as real money held to the collatoral of the Crown
* therefore you are paid in someone’s else ‘money
* therefore they can take it back if they so choose

What savings do you then have and what are they worth?
* superannuation – all your sweat equity has been converted in australian dollars – therefore your superannuation account is worth nothing
* savings – as above

People – that Australian dollar can however be exchanged for the american dollar. Take it to the bank and ask for that money to be converted. Then you will have something real in exchange for your sweat equity.

Because when the International Courts of Justice give the direction that David Walter expects – the men and women working in the Australian System of Government as entities and the members of political parties will hold all responsibility for the international debt and compensation for the theft of the wealth of the men and women of the Commonwealth. As that currently stands at $3 trillion and growing – do you think they will have enough left over to cover your superannuation savings?

Good people – it is up to you and I to be prepared for our future. Start with demanding your superannuation monies be given to you in american dollars within 7 days. Start with turning your australian dollars into real money – the only possible one being the american dollar. Start with protecting yourself and your family first. Because this government has not cared one moment for your future – it just wanted you to keep earning to feed their futures.

The order to read these documents is
1. FLORA News 19
2. Australian Government GAZETTE - List of Acts from 19th October 1973
3. Letter to John Smith (DJW's legal representative) in Strasbourg, France
4. Letter to British High Commissioner
5. Letter and exhibits re Dempsey and the Cairns Court
6. Letter and exhibits re Maynes and NSW Supreme Court (in the files 9.7.2013)

These documents will give you the full details of the corporate structure - the core details. If you understand these documents, follow through on the references - you will know what has been done and how.

Feel free to share these documents with every politician, public servant, councillor, media person, friend, foe, banker, police, lawyer, etc.

 

Ask them to tell you the facts are wrong. In writing. Signed.

 

Sue Maynes

6 attachments — Download all attachments  

Flora News 19.pdf 206K   View   Download

1. Australian Government GAZETTE - List of Acts (signed) 9pp.pdf 128K   View   Download

2. Letter to John Smith (signed) 6pp.pdf 89K   View   Download

3. Letter to British High Commission (signed) 4pp.pdf 73K   View   Download

4. Letter to Stipendiary Magistrate, Cairns Court QLD (signed) 44pp.pdf 3318K   View   Download

5. Letter & Exhibits to Registrar Supreme Court NSW (signed) 32pp.pdf 733K   View   Download

LEE TUAN PHAM: HOW TO START A MANDAMUS ACTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FOR PERVERSION TO DEFEAT JUSTICE

Minority Report: Judicial Corruption and Collusion to pervert the administration of justice, to be filed with a Notice of a Constitutional Matter

 

Inbox

x

 

chas x	3:43 PM (16 hours ago)
to Michael, transparencyca., gleonard, georgiamortley, alan.n.wolfe, denis.napthine, minister, senator.brandis, chambers.justi., lfedeli, info, Marcus.Finlay, fiona.batten, Saie.Neal, Lucy.Maxwell, complaints, Bruce.Chen, legal, mark.dreyfus.mp, nicola, Nicola.roxon.mp, attorney, office, robert.clark, Attorney

Dear Mr Michael Ahrens and Transparency Australia,
The Victorian Premier, and Victorian MP, and those charged with protecting the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 (VIC),
Immigration Minister, and the Defence Minister,
Attorneys General and VIC Equal Opportunity &amp; Human Rights Commission,
MPs, Friends, Students of Law and Human Rights Defenders,

1. Here is a draft of the High Court challenge to the collusion of the Supreme Court Victoria, VEOHRC, court registrars and officials in perversion of the Charter and the administration of justice.

2. You will note that the Victorian Attorney General Robert Clark is named along with their corrupt lawyers Bruce Chen and JM Davidson, for a collusion to pervert the administration of justice.

3. Is it the intention of the Victorian Parliament and TI to allow these corrupt individuals including two (2) Australian Order recipients including the supreme court judge Gregory Howard Garde AO, who is also the President of VCAT, to pervert the Charter and the administration of justice?
4. It seems this Refugee needs to break this vicious cycle of judiciary corruption and denial of justice, that includes the High Court and Registrars, Mussolino and Weybury, in order to cause injuries and deaths.
5. Mr Chin, Rogerio, Berto, Peter and others, this draft will include further material butthe core is there for anyone to use to prove a collusion between the judiciary and their mates in order to pervert the administration of justice, in order to profit from the proceeds of their crimes.

6. It relies on the s75 of the Constitution, s38 of the Judiciary Act and sections of the Crimes Act to prosecute the corruption.

7. If you wondered how the pedophiles and their mates got away with their crimes for so long, now you can see the tactics of these corrupt individuals.

8. If Kirby J does not expose the Unlawful Discrimination of the High Court Australia, the Supreme Court of India will expose their abuse of discretion.

9. Feel free to assist in make an corrections, but remember that you need to file the other documents as well to see Mandamus and Notice of Constitution.

10. I give you permission to use my name and legal documents, you just need to alert me to the action.

11. We notice that the Federal Attorney General and his clowns got their behinds handed to them by the Japanese in the International Criminal Court, for (you guessed it) racially vilification of the Japanese people. We guess that they need to justify the Welfare handed to them from the Australian people.

12. We hope that the Immigration Minister will make sure that the Royal Australian Navy will do their duty to assist Refugees on the high seas, instead of making up BS about their own safety and causing deaths. We may or may not include the Navy in the High Court proceedings, BUT definitely the Autralian Human Rights (and Equal Opportunity) Commission and their President (John von Doussa) will be.Humbly Searching for answers,
Le Tuan PHAM
PO BOX 1255
St Albans 3121
nwn.webmaster@gmail.com
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.tk/
http://kangaroocourtsofaustralia.tk/

=============================
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA  

[MELBOURNE] REGISTRY                                                                               No.              of 2012

BETWEEN:                                                                                                                                     

Robert Alan Thorpe First Plaintiff

Le Tuan Pham   Second Plaintiff

and
Denise Weybury (Registrar High Court Australia) First Defendant
Rosemary Musolino (Registrar High Court Australia) Second Defendant
Attorney General (Commonwealth Australia) Third Defendant
Robert William Clark, Attorney General (State of Victoria) Fourth Defendant

President of Australian Human Rights Commission (Commonwealth Australia) Fifth Defendant
Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VIC) Sixth Defendant
Simon Paul Whelan (Court of Appeal Victoria) Seventh Defendant
Peter Norman Vickery (Court of Appeal Victoria)Eighth Defendant
Geoffrey Arthur Akeroyd Nettle (Supreme Court Victoria) Ninth Defendant
Marcia Ann Neave AO (Supreme Court Victoria) Tenth Defendant
Gregory Howard Garde AO (Supreme Court Victoria) Eleventh Defendant
Karin Leigh Emerton (Supreme Court Victoria) Twelfth Defendant
Nemeer Mukhtar (Supreme Court Victoria) Thirteenth Defendant
President VCAT Victoria (VCAT Victoria) Fourteenth Defendant
Prothonotary (Supreme Court Victoria) Fifteenth Defendant
Dep President Ian Lulham (VCAT Victoria) Sixteenth Defendant
S/Member  Cremean (VCAT Victoria) Seventeenth Defendant
Principal Registrar (VCAT Victoria) Eighteenth Defendant
Judicial Registrar Mark Pedley (Court of Appeals Vic) Nineteenth Defendant

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
To:              Parties (according to the attached Schedule)

TAKE NOTICE that this application has been made by the plaintiff for the relief that is set out below on the grounds that are set out below.

IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the proceeding you must file a notice of appearance in the office of the Registry named above.

IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT to any order that the Court may make, save as to costs, you may file a submitting appearance in the office of the Registry named above.

THE TIME FOR FILING AN APPEARANCE is as follows:

(a)  where you are served with the application within Australia – 14 days from the date of service;

(b)  in any other case – 42 days from the date of service.

THE RELIEF CLAIMED is
1.            Bold Declaration from the High Court Australia:
a.    that judgment without reason amounts to denial of justice;
2.            Bold Declaration from the High Court Australia:a.    that pursuant to COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75, (the Constitution)
Original jurisdiction of High Court
In all matters:
(i)  arising under any treaty;
(iii)  in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party;
(iv)  between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State;
(v)  in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth;
and or,  
b.    JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 38,
Matters in which jurisdiction of High Court exclusive 
Subject to sections 39B and 44, the jurisdiction of the High Court shall be exclusive of the jurisdiction of the several Courts of the States in the following matters:
(a)  matters arising directly under any treaty;
b)  suits between States, or between persons suing or being sued on behalf of different States, or between a State and a person suing or being sued on behalf of another State;
(d)  suits by a State, or any person suing on behalf of a State, against the Commonwealth or any person being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth;
(e)  matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth or a federal court.
c.    the High Court shall have original jurisdiction;
d.    And that the High Court is made of no less than two (2) properly authorized judges;
e.    And that the Plaintiffs do not need LEAVE to have such matters heard in the High Court, arising directly under any treaty: inter alia:
 i.    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
 ii.    International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
And or,
f.     matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth or a federal court.
3.            Bold Declaration from the High Court Australia:
a.    an officer of the Commonwealth or a federal court is defined in the CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3
Interpretation
 "Commonwealth officer" means a person holding office under, or employed by, the Commonwealth, and includes:
(a)  a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ;
(aa)  a person permanently or temporarily employed in the Public Service of a Territory or in, or in connection with, the Defence Force, or in the Service of a public authority under the Commonwealth;  (b)  the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, a Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, an AFP employee or a special member of the Australian Federal Police (all within the meaning of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 ); and
(c)  for the purposes of section 70, a person who, although not holding office under, or employed by, the Commonwealth, a Territory or a public authority under the Commonwealth, performs services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth, a Territory or a public authority under the Commonwealth; and
(d)  for the purposes of section 70:
(i)  a person who is an employee of the Australian Postal Corporation;
(ii)  a person who performs services for or on behalf of the Australian Postal Corporation; an
 (iii)  an employee of a person who performs services for or on behalf of the Australian Postal Corporation.
4.            Writ(s) of mandamus or prohibition is sought against the Defendant(s), officers of the Commonwealth or a federal court, for an abuse of discretion, and a breach of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act (Cth) 1986 (the HREOCA), and the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act (VIC) 2006 (the Charter), in flagrant disregards for Australia’s obligations to International Treaties, s75 of the Constitution and s38 of the Judiciary Act.
5.            And any other orders as the High Court sees fit, in order to serve the best interest of Justice and public interest, in the administration of Australian Democracy.

THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE RELIEF IS CLAIMED are:
1.            Relief is claimed pursuant to s75 of the Constitution, and or
2.            S38 of the Judiciary Act, and or
3.            The Crimes Act s3, 
a.    s42. Conspiracy to defeat justice 
b.    s43.  Attempting to pervert justice
c.    s44.  Compounding offences, and or
4.            Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("ADJR Act") s5; inter alia.
5.            Mandamus will lie for an abuse of discretion where discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously or where discretion has been exercised in bad faith, Peavey Co. V. Corcoran 714 S.W.2d 943. In such instances the abuse amounts, in effect, to no discretion. Mandamus is warranted when the abuse is clear or results in a manifest injustice, Reis V. Nangle 349 S.W.2d 943. Mandamus will lie when an official refuses to act when he has a duty to act and refuses to do so.
6.            The High Court of Australia's decision in 1995, in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh, confirmed that legislative provisions should be interpreted by courts in a manner that ensures, as far as possible, that they are consistent with the provisions of Australia's international obligations:
7. It is well established that the provisions of an international treaty to which Australia is a party do not form part of Australian law unless those provisions have been validly incorporated into our municipal law by statute ...
8.   But the fact that the Convention [on the Rights of the Child] has not been incorporated into Australian law does not mean that its ratification holds no significance for Australian law. Where a statute or subordinate legislation is ambiguous, the courts should favour that construction which accords with Australia's obligations under a treaty or international convention to which Australia is a party, at least in those cases in which the legislation is enacted after, or in contemplation of, entry into, or ratification of, the relevant international instrument. That is because Parliament, prima facie, intends to give effect to Australia's obligations under international law.(1)
9.     The High Court also held that ratification of a treaty raised a legitimate expectation that an executive decision-maker will act consistently with its terms:
10. .. ratification of a convention is a positive statement by the executive government of this country to the world and to the Australian people that the executive government and its agencies will act in accordance with the Convention. That positive statement is an adequate foundation for a legitimate expectation, absent statutory or executive indications to the contrary, that administrative decision-makers will act in conformity with the Convention and treat the best interests of the children as "a primary consideration". It is not necessary that a person seeking to set up such a legitimate expectation should be aware of the Convention or should personally entertain the expectation; it is enough that the expectation is reasonable in the sense that there are adequate materials to support it.(2)
1.(1995) 183 CLR 273 at 287 (footnotes omitted).
2. (1995) 183 CLR 273 at 291 (footnotes omitted). Recent comments by members of the High Court have suggested that the 'legitimate expectation' principle outlined in Teoh may be the subject of reconsideration by the High Court in future (Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs: Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6). However, the principle is still binding law in Australia. Note, in particular, that there have been three attempts to introduce legislation that overrules the 'legitimate expectation' principle - Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1995, Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1997, Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999. However, none of those bills were passed. The Executive also attempted to overturn this principle in 1995 by issuing a statement which asserted 'that entering into an international treaty is not reason for raising any expectation that government decision-makers will act in accordance with the treaty ...'; Minister for Foreign Affairs and Attorney-General, International Treaties and the High Court Decision in Teoh, Joint Statement, 10 May 1995. A statement in similar terms was released by the Attorney-General of South Australia on 8 June 1995. See generally S Roberts, 'Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh: The High Court Decision and the Government's Reaction to it', Australian Journal of Human Rights, vol 2, 1995, p135. These statements have been found to be of no effect by the courts; see, for example, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ram (1996) 69 FCR 431; Browne v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 566 FCA; Tien v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 89 FCR 80.
11.          Legitimate expectations and statutes form the backbone of Australian Democracy, and it appears there are “legitimate” attempts to undermine democracy.
12.          Manifest Disregard for the Facts and Evidence go hand in hand with Manifest Disregard for the Statutes: Marshall J of the Federal Court labeled the HREOCA a general rule.
13.          The Supreme Court of Victoria and Court of Appeal have consistently refused to answer questions of an interpretation of the Charter, or an interpretation of statutes according to the Charter;
14.          There appears to be collusion between the executive and the judiciary to undermine the administration of justice, and a clear breach of the separation of powers of the judiciary and the executive, built into the Constitution.
15.          Breaches of the statutes include
a.    the Charter in totality: the Supreme Court of Victoria and Court of Appeal ignore it completely;
 i.    s8.      Recognition and equality before the law
 ii.    s10.     Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
 iii.    s13.     Privacy and reputation
 iv.    s20.     Property rights
 v.    s24.     Fair hearing
 vi.    s32.     Interpretation
vii.    s33.     Referral to Supreme Court
  viii.    38.       Conduct of public authorities
 ix.    39.    Legal proceedings: collusion to deny the Plaintiff the legal remedies, under common law and the Charter;
b.    the Administrative Law Act (VIC) 1978, refused to apply it, in order to coverup for judicial abuse.
c.    Manifest disregards for Statutes, Facts and Evidence, amounts to judgment without reason, a denial of justice
16.          “ADJR Act”, s5
1      e. that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment in pursuance of which it was purported to be made;
2      The reference in paragraph (1)(e) to an improper exercise of a power shall be construed as including a reference to:
e.    an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power;
17.          The “reasonable” Justices of India’s highest court, the Supreme Court, have continuously confirm and reaffirm:
a.    Judgement without reason amounts to denial of justice;
b.    Justices Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam, New Delhi, Jan 6 2008 (UNI) The Supreme Court;
c.    ''the emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the inscrutable face of the sphinx, it can by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to performs their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.''
d.    Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons were sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before courts,
e.    that another rationale was that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him.
f.     ''One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out,''
g.    strongly disapproved the casual approach of the High Court
h.    and held the judgement of the court was unsustainable.
i.      The apex court pulled up both the courts for not performing their duties and concluded by holding ''the trial court on the facts of this case did not perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law.
j.      The questions involved were not trivial.
k.    On plainest consideration of justice, the high Court ought to have set forth its reasons howsoever brief, in its order indicative an application of its mind, all the more when its order amenable to further avenue of challenge.
l.      ''The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration and failure to give reason amounts to denial of justice,'' it added. UNI AKS/SC SK RK1736
18.          The “Reasonable” Justice Peter Bell:

Tomasevic v Travaglini &amp; Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007), inter alia
139         Every judge in every trial, both criminal and civil, has an overriding duty to ensure the trial is fair. A fair trial is the only trial a judge can judicially conduct. The duty is inherent in the rule of law and the judicial process. Equality before the law and equal access to justice are fundamental human rights specified in the ICCPR. The proper performance of the duty to ensure a fair trial would also ensure those rights are promoted and respected.

140         Most self-represented persons lack two qualities that competent lawyers possess - legal skill and ability, and objectivity. Self-represented litigants therefore usually stand in a position of grave disadvantage in legal proceedings of all kinds. Consequently, a judge has a duty to ensure a fair trial by giving self-represented litigants due assistance. Doing so helps to ensure the litigant is treated equally before the law and has equal access to justice.

141         The matters regarding which the judge must assist a self-represented litigant are not limited, for the judge must give such assistance as is necessary to ensure a fair trial. The proper scope of the assistance depends on the particular litigant and the nature of the case. The touchstones are fairness and balance. The assistance may extend to issues concerning substantive legal rights as well as to issues concerning the procedure that will be followed. The Family Court of Australia has enunciated useful guidelines on the performance of the duty.

142         The judge cannot become the advocate of the self-represented litigant, for the role of the judge is fundamentally different to that of an advocate. Further, the judge must maintain the reality and appearance of judicial neutrality at all times and to all parties, represented and self-represented. The assistance must be proportionate in the circumstances - it must ensure a fair trial, not afford an advantage to the self-represented litigant.

143         It remains to apply these principles to the present case.

THE JUDGE DID NOT PROPERLY PERFORM HIS DUTY TO ASSIST MR TOMASEVIC AS A SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT.

19.           

20.          Authorities:

a.    Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)

b.    Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32

c.    Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126]

d.    University of Wollongong v Metwally (1984)

e.    Tomasevic v Travaglini &amp; Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007)

f.     Mandamus will lie for an abuse of discretion where discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously or where discretion has been exercised in bad faith, Peavey Co. V. Corcoran 714 S.W.2d 943. In such instances the abuse amounts, in effect, to no discretion. Mandamus is warranted when the abuse is clear or results in a manifest injustice, Reis V. Nangle 349 S.W.2d 943. Mandamus will lie when an official refuses to act when he has a duty to act and refuses to do so.

This application shall be heard at the time and place stated [if a summons is to be served with the application] in the summons served with this application / [if no summons is to be served with the application] in a summons to be served at a later time.

This application was filed by the plaintiff.

Dated:

                                                                                                            ................(signed)....................

                                                                                                       [Name of plaintiff / plaintiff’s solicitor]

The plaintiff’s address is         [].

The plaintiff’s address for service is [PO BOX 1255, St Albans 3021].